You are here

He Would Rather Have the Poor Poorer

As the questioner framed it, “relatively less well-off” is not “absolutely less well-off”.

Economic activity is not a zero-sum enterprise. Every willing transaction makes all parties better off. Even if only 1% of the gain went to the poorer trader, the trade still makes him 1% better off.

There are two methods to ensure all parties benefit equally. Prohibit unequal outcomes, or forcibly equalize gains after the transaction. Either method reduces the number of possible transactions. Fewer trades mean less gain to be be divided. And as Thatcher says, “That way you will never create the wealth for better social services.” If you truly care about the poor, care about the poor, do not envy the rich.

I came of age with Reagan. Perhaps Thatcher was the bigger lion.

Note also, near the end of the video, Lady Thatcher warns about a single European currency and European central bank as a method to disempower European parliaments and end European democracy. I believe this was from 1990. Twenty years on, two nations of Europe have fallen under bankster control.

The poorest in Europe are certainly richer than in 1990. What thatcher warned about was not a concentration of wealth, but a concentration of power. Although power and wealth are exchangeable, they are not the same. Moral governments are constituted to protect against the tyrannical exercise of power. Dictating the distribution of wealth serves to concentrate power while simultaneously preventing the poorest from improving their condition.

Comments

She had the urgency of an emergency-room surgeon, the rhetorical subtlety of a blowtorch, and the conviction of a desert monk.

Give me one of those!

…Thatcher made an unsparing and comprehensive case against socialism. “In the end,” she thundered, “the real case against socialism is not its economic inefficiency, though on all sides there is evidence of that. Much more fundamental is its basic immorality.”